Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

I repeat, does Dr Sarfati deny that this ichthyosaur was attempting to give birth on land (and wish to claim that it did so in the sea)?

The fraud Sarfati HAS answered questions from his credulous supporters under the article itself.

An email will follow, exposing that (as usual) when intelligent (or stupid) YECs cannot answer questions THEY CENSOR THE QUESTIONER.

PS Email sent around 20.45 GMT:

"My two latest posts here should be self-explanatory:[this thread]

Does Dr Sarfati deny that the ichthyosaur mentioned in his CMI article dated 16 November was attempting to give birth on land (and claim that it was actually trying to give birth in the ocean)? Yes or No? Is he embarrassed to offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer?

Overnight somebody has silently banned me from his facebook page and also removed my question so the answer appears to be YES HE IS EMBARRASSED. BECAUSE EITHER ANSWER WOULD MAKE HIS ANTI-SCIENCE LOOK LIKE THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY IS. He must either deny the findings or admit that a sea creature started giving birth on land 1,500 years after 'creation week' (but later gave birth in the sea again before going extinct)."

PPS My question has also been sent to CMI via their website. Sarfati being their Head Scientist but somewhat unwilling to answer my science-related question.

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Young Earth creationists like Sorensen lie in the way that everybody else breathes:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.SupermanFurther proof that these 'Christians' are evil or stupid or insane or full of hate (or ALL of the above). See photos.Liar Sorensen also claims on his hate facebook page that "Fundie evolutionists do not want reason they want jihad." NO Bob. That would be the evolution-denying psychopathic islamist terrorists. But never let the facts get in the way of propaganda, LIAR Sorensen!

REMEMBER - ALL THIS REPEATED COWARDLY HATE AGAINST MYSELF WAS BECAUSE I ASKED DR JONATHAN SARFATI A QUESTION HE EITHER CANNOT ANSWER OR HE DARE NOT ANSWER. BY BANNING ME INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING MY HIGHLY RELEVANT QUESTION. I SUGGEST HE CHECK-MATED HIMSELF. AND BOB IS ANGRY - AGAIN.

However, I see that after hesitating to for several days. Sarfati has resurfaced at Bob's page and decided to try and DENY science ONCE AGAIN. He now wishes to DISPUTE that this ichthyosaur was attempting to give birth on land. Your evidence that it was NOT, Dr Sarfati? (Ah yes, it must be the opening chapter of Genesis that you are presenting as your 'evidence'. Says the lead scientist of 'Creation Ministries International'.)

Note also that Sarfati fails to quote my actual question (I asked whether he denied that the birth attempt took place on land) and instead pretends - in typical misleading YEC fashion - that I have made some kind of dogmatic statement about the ichthyosaur. Viz his comment to Sorensen:"Why does AH-R think it was giving birth on land?" I only tend towards that view because that is the view of the SCIENTISTS involved. Not because I am trying to 'prove' evolution.

So Jonathan himself now thinks that this (early) ichthyosaur was not in fact attempting to give birth on land and must have been doing so in the sea, despite the fact that one foetus was exiting head first and the abstract of the PLOS One paper states that the scientists think the head-first birth posture is "unlikely to be a breech condition". The scientists also consider that a head-first posture also indicates a "terrestrial origin of viviparity" (live birthing). Sarfati's comments do not directly address much of what the abstract states regarding the would-be head-first birth of this foetus.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088640

But birth of an early ichthyosaur on land would be 'unbiblical' (because they were created as sea creatures not much earlier in time and because they did 'not' evolve from land creatures that themselves had evolved from earlier sea creatures)? The YECs do not appear to have any concrete evidence that this ichthyosaur was actually in the sea and not on land during its failed attempt to give birth. Yet Sarfati now wishes to claim that the unbiblical looking view of the 'secular' scientists 'must' be incorrect.

I would of course agree that the fact that the behaviour of pro-Christian young earth creationists is evil is an UNPLEASANT reality. Especially for other committed Christians who actually think that truth counts for more than dogma and attacks upon scientists.

No wonder Christianity appears to be in decline in the USA. With the internet and improved science education, people can see through the hypocrisy, lies, hate and arrogance of those poor persecuted young earth creationist fundamentalists. The ones who 'debate' people by banning them - and then (in some cases) lying about them and trying to summon up a rabble of whingers to post libellous comments."

PS Minor typos now corrected.PPS In his article Sarfati did speculate: "the new fossil of a head-first birth may well have been pathological, perhaps the trauma of being buried causing premature birth from the wrong position". A strange occurrence if it happened.

Addendum at 3.45 am on 24 Nov:I forgot the read Sorensen's new garbage on his facebook page - but didn't miss anything. Here is a taster:"Another example of bigotry and hate masquerading as "logic" and "reason". This guy has been stalking me for years, and harassing other creationists. The screenshot is from a thread called "Devious Dr. Sarfati", so you know from the outset that he has a strong negative bias against Dr. Sarfati of Creation Ministries International. Haywire is upset because he picked on an article that CMI posted on FB, left comments, and was banned. But he has a history of obnoxious talk, and has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Since he cannot back up his assertion (he tries with making more assertions!), this makes *him* the liar. (By the way, I think he's jealous that my own comments get published at CMI, and he's banned.)"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions" (Prov. 18:2). Some of us have things to do, and many creationist ministries and individual have banned this guy. Prejudicial conjecture and saying, "No, that's not true because it's not evolution! You're a LIAR!" is not refutation of an argument. Note the either/or fallacies as well as appeal to motive. He doesn't consider the possibility that he was banned because he's an insufferable fool."

I GET BANNED BY YECS BECAUSE I AM NOT A 'FOOL' AND REGULARLY EXPOSE THEIR LIES AND EVASIVENESS. FACT. I AM THREAT TO THEM. MY COMMENTS MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DEMONISED.

Today I received an email from YEC Paul Garner as follows:"Ashley,I hesitate to get involved in such unproductive exchanges, but I think you need to read the paper by Motani et al. (2014) more carefully. It is open access, so you are not restricted to the abstract alone.The bottom line is that the authors of the paper do not claim that this ichthyosaur specimen was giving birth on land, only that they think viviparity (live birth) in Mesozoic marine reptiles originated on land.They clearly believe that this ichthyosaur gave birth underwater, as the following extract from the paper’s “Discussion" section demonstrates. I have highlighted the relevant statements in bold.* [He quoted the third, fourth and fifth paras from the Discussion section at the end of this paper:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088640]Best regards,Paul Garner"

I have replied (copied wider) as follows:"PaulThank you. I did not attempt to read any more than the Abstract because I assumed (wrongly) that only the Abstract of the paper was open access on the relevant link (which I had to search for as the link on Dr Sarfati's article was not 'live'). It appeared from both the Abstract and from that National Geographic article that Dr Sarfati also referred to that the scientists DID believe that the genus of ichthyosaurs named Chaohusaurus gave birth on land. The former stated: "This exceptional specimen captures an articulated embryo in birth position, with its skull just emerged from the maternal pelvis. Its headfirst birth posture, which is unlikely to be a breech condition, strongly indicates a terrestrial origin of viviparity, in contrast to the traditional view." The latter stated: "Since ichthyosaurs evolved first on land before becoming aquatic, some of the first species to live in water, such as Chaohusaurus, were still giving birth as their ancestors had—on land."I have not read the full paper but I have now skim read the whole of the 'Discussion' section at the end. The fifth paragraph there states: "Although a case for terrestrial birth cannot be established in Chaohusaurus, the uniformly caudad skull orientation of its embryos does suggest that viviparity in Ichthyopterygia most likely evolved in their ancestor on land, where caudad embryonic skull orientation during parturition is the norm."http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088640As indicated in my preceding message, I do not myself see a need to be dogmatic about where this particular ichthyosaur was attempting to give birth and now accept - based on this clarification of the scientists' apparent conclusions - that perhaps it was underwater. However, I suspect that the young earth creationist worldview requires them to be dogmatic that it was NOT on land (even though the creature's ancestors must have given birth on land since viviparity in marine reptiles is now thought to have begun on land).Ashley"

"Young Earth creationists like Sorensen lie in the way that everybody else breathes:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.SupermanFurther proof that these 'Christians' are evil or stupid or insane or full of hate (or ALL of the above). See photos.Liar Sorensen also claims on his hate facebook page that "Fundie evolutionists do not want reason they want jihad." NO Bob. That would be the evolution-denying psychopathic islamist terrorists. But never let the facts get in the way of propaganda, LIAR Sorensen!

REMEMBER - ALL THIS REPEATED COWARDLY HATE AGAINST MYSELF WAS BECAUSE I ASKED DR JONATHAN SARFATI A QUESTION HE EITHER CANNOT ANSWER OR HE DARE NOT ANSWER. BY BANNING ME INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING MY HIGHLY RELEVANT QUESTION. I SUGGEST HE CHECK-MATED HIMSELF. AND BOB IS ANGRY - AGAIN.

However, I see that after hesitating to for several days. Sarfati has resurfaced at Bob's page and decided to try and DENY science ONCE AGAIN. He now wishes to DISPUTE that this ichthyosaur was attempting to give birth on land. Your evidence that it was NOT, Dr Sarfati? (Ah yes, it must be the opening chapter of Genesis that you are presenting as your 'evidence'. Says the lead scientist of 'Creation Ministries International'.)

Note also that Sarfati fails to quote my actual question (I asked whether he denied that the birth attempt took place on land) and instead pretends - in typical misleading YEC fashion - that I have made some kind of dogmatic statement about the ichthyosaur. Viz his comment to Sorensen:"Why does AH-R think it was giving birth on land?" I only tend towards that view because that is the view of the SCIENTISTS involved. Not because I am trying to 'prove' evolution.

So Jonathan himself now thinks that this (early) ichthyosaur was not in fact attempting to give birth on land and must have been doing so in the sea, despite the fact that one foetus was exiting head first and the abstract of the PLOS One paper states that the scientists think the head-first birth posture is "unlikely to be a breech condition". The scientists also consider that a head-first posture also indicates a "terrestrial origin of viviparity" (live birthing). Sarfati's comments do not directly address much of what the abstract states regarding the would-be head-first birth of this foetus.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0088640

But birth of an early ichthyosaur on land would be 'unbiblical' (because they were created as sea creatures not much earlier in time and because they did 'not' evolve from land creatures that themselves had evolved from earlier sea creatures)? The YECs do not appear to have any concrete evidence that this ichthyosaur was actually in the sea and not on land during its failed attempt to give birth. Yet Sarfati now wishes to claim that the unbiblical looking view of the 'secular' scientists 'must' be incorrect.

I would of course agree that the fact that the behaviour of pro-Christian young earth creationists is evil is an UNPLEASANT reality. Especially for other committed Christians who actually think that truth counts for more than dogma and attacks upon scientists.

No wonder Christianity appears to be in decline in the USA. With the internet and improved science education, people can see through the hypocrisy, lies, hate and arrogance of those poor persecuted young earth creationist fundamentalists. The ones who 'debate' people by banning them - and then (in some cases) lying about them and trying to summon up a rabble of whingers to post libellous comments."

PS Minor typos now corrected.PPS In his article Sarfati did speculate: "the new fossil of a head-first birth may well have been pathological, perhaps the trauma of being buried causing premature birth from the wrong position". A strange occurrence if it happened.

Addendum at 3.45 am on 24 Nov:I forgot the read Sorensen's new garbage on his facebook page - but didn't miss anything. Here is a taster:"Another example of bigotry and hate masquerading as "logic" and "reason". This guy has been stalking me for years, and harassing other creationists. The screenshot is from a thread called "Devious Dr. Sarfati", so you know from the outset that he has a strong negative bias against Dr. Sarfati of Creation Ministries International. Haywire is upset because he picked on an article that CMI posted on FB, left comments, and was banned. But he has a history of obnoxious talk, and has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Since he cannot back up his assertion (he tries with making more assertions!), this makes *him* the liar. (By the way, I think he's jealous that my own comments get published at CMI, and he's banned.)"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions" (Prov. 18:2). Some of us have things to do, and many creationist ministries and individual have banned this guy. Prejudicial conjecture and saying, "No, that's not true because it's not evolution! You're a LIAR!" is not refutation of an argument. Note the either/or fallacies as well as appeal to motive. He doesn't consider the possibility that he was banned because he's an insufferable fool."

I GET BANNED BY YECS BECAUSE I AM NOT A 'FOOL' AND REGULARLY EXPOSE THEIR LIES AND EVASIVENESS. FACT. I AM THREAT TO THEM. MY COMMENTS MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DEMONISED.

The insane liar and fraud calling himself 'Harold Smith' and claiming to be in charge of an asylum sorry sanitorium has written on Sorensen's page:"He's nuts and proving you right".

If you say so - and you clearly love your delusions, Harold. To the mad the sane probably appear insane. This individual is I think also one of those low-life bigots who decide what is 'true' about other people who disagree with them NOT based on facts, reason and evidence - but on Bible-based extreme prejudice and dogma. If the Bible suggests that the critic is evil, then they are 'evil' and 'lying' full stop. Just don't you dare risk examining the actual facts of the case to double check that it is not YOU who is deluded and wrong and spewing lies ...

"https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman"Also, notice the screenshot and that link show it's all about his ego. He acts like he's on a crusade for the truth, but it's just angry ranting. Haywire does not address the actual topics raised here, but instead, defends his logical fallacies with more of them; he's not capable of rational thought, just emotional reactions."I was discussing the evasiveness of Sarfati not Bob's hate pages. But the stinking hypocrite and piece of fundie scum Cowboy Sorensen started attacking me - in usual cowardly and dishonest fashion - on his TQEP hatebook page. Thus I defended myself against his disgusting daily lies. I will continue to do so and he had better learn that he cannot intimidate me into silence.

What a lying tosser."

PS I would advise this hypocritical mendacious jerk against deleting his comment as I might already have taken a photo of it.

"All Christians should shun the evil Bob Sorensen. *https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman"Lies? I documented bad logic and a rant against Dr. Sarfati.Dishonest? His comment was posted for the world to see, and I used itas a demonstration on not only bad logic, but I hope people will learnto spot such antics." [A photo of this dishonesty should have accompanied my email.]

Bob LIED that "Haywire does not address the actual topics raisedhere." Oh yes I DO you evil liar. But the posts of mine in questionwere nothing to do Bob and he should mind his own damned business. Theywere about Jonathan Sarfati. As I have already explained to thisunrepentant Liar for God. Bob LIED that I used bad logic. This stupidhypocrite IGNORES the science in my exchange with Paul Garner. He isboth evil and stupid. He thinks I am stupid. He is wrong.

Bob's impression of being insane fools nobody. Except perhaps thederanged people who 'like' his deranged and lying blog posts. Hope theyall enjoy being in that lake of fire. Unless they repent of their hateand their hypocrisy and their lying."

* But of course that never happens in Christianity - too many Christians tolerate evil by their claimed brethren.

So if the scientists think this ichthyosaur was actually attempting to give birth in the sea (despite viviparity in its ancestors having started on land), a conclusion Sarfati likes, then how exactly is the death and fossilisation of this creature 'evidence for a global flood'? Clearly it was not overwhelmed by sudden violent floodwaters on land.

Because the species has gone extinct and Dr Sarfati thinks that should not have happened - thus the Genesis worldwide flood must really have happened and must therefore be the cause, silly. Sarfati writes: "There are no ichthyosaurs alive today. As air-breathers, they could not stay under water indefinitely, so would surely have been discovered if they were still alive. But their extinction is a mystery for evolutionists, since they seem very well adapted to marine life. A likely biblical explanation is that they were mostly or totally wiped out by Noah’s Flood, like other large marine reptiles such as pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs. After all, Noah took only land creatures on board the Ark. Even if some of these reptiles survived the Flood itself, the drastic temperature changes in the ocean may have been especially harmful to large marine reptiles because they were cold-blooded, unlike whales and dolphins."

His article does not of course discuss the likely anoxic extinction events in the seas during the Cretaceous period.